Amendment 6 would prohibit public funding of abortions

Today we present the sixth in a series of articles on the 11 proposed amendments to the state constitution that will be on the November ballot.

All are sponsored by the Florida Legislature.

This information is provided by the Collins Center for Public Policy in Tallahassee, a group devoted to seeking out creative, nonpartisan solutions to Florida’s toughest problems. What is provided here is an abbreviated version of what the Collins Center has written. To view the full text, go to www.collinscenter.org.

Title on Ballot: Prohibition on Public Funding of Abortions; Construction of Abortion Rights

This amendment would make the existing federal ban on public funding for most abortions part of the state constitution. It would narrow the scope of a state privacy law that is sometimes used in Florida to challenge abortion laws.

If you vote yes:

A “yes” vote means you support putting the existing federal ban on the use of public funds for abortions into the state constitution; and you support eliminating the state’s privacy right with respect to a woman’s right to choose.

If you vote no:

A “no” vote means you are against placing the existing federal ban on using public funds for abortions into the state constitution; and you are against eliminating the state’s privacy right with respect to a woman’s right to choose.

Arguments for:

Supporters say this makes it clear Florida prohibits public funding for abortions and gives the public a voice in deciding state abortion law.

Arguments against:

Opponents say this amendment discriminates against women, strips away a woman’s fundamental right to choose, and erodes established law, including rights of privacy.

Should federal abortion laws be enshrined in the state constitution? And should the state’s constitutional right to privacy be modified?

Amendment 6 raises two questions related to abortion rights in Florida. The first — whether the state constitution should reflect the existing federal prohibitions on the public funding of abortions — would not change current abortion funding practices in Florida. The second — whether to modify a provision in the state constitution that guarantees a right to privacy for every Floridian — would affect abortion law in the state.

As to the impact on state law, the first question matters less than the second. For several decades, federal law has prohibited the expenditure of federal funds for most abortions (exceptions include rape, incest and medical conditions that threaten the mother’s life). Amendment 6 would not expand those prohibitions. If passed, it would simply duplicate the existing federal prohibitions.

The second question is more consequential. In 1980, Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment that says, in part: “Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life…” This privacy right is often used to challenge abortion measures passed by Florida lawmakers. Over the years, courts have cited the clause when blocking parental-notification laws involving pregnant minors and laws requiring doctors to counsel women about alternatives to abortion. The law was pivotal in a landmark case in 1989 that prevented Gov. Jeb Bush from stopping a pregnant 13-year-old in state custody from choosing to have an abortion.

In short, passage of Amendment 6 would mean parental-notification laws or other types of procedural abortion legislation passed by state lawmakers would no longer be subject to challenge under the state’s privacy law.

Supporters say this amendment puts the state on even footing with the federal government and allows the electorate to express its opinion on abortion law. “It’s a broad enough value issue that we should let the public speak,” state Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, a sponsor of the amendment, told the Ocala Star-Banner. “I think it’s far-reaching and it’s controversial, but we as a state will address the sanctity of life, which is a foundational issue.” Opponents say it is a pre-emptive strike on a woman’s right to choose. “This amendment would roll back women’s rights as protected under the Florida Constitution. We would be reversing that express right to privacy,” Stephanie Kunkel, the former executive director of Planned Parenthood of Florida, told the Ocala Star-Banner.

■

The Florida House approved the measure by a 79-34 vote. The Florida Senate voted 27-12 to approve the measure. As with all amendments, passage requires the approval of 60 percent or more of the voters. If approved, the bill will go into effect on Jan. 8, 2013.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Now this is something that everyone should be able to deal with. Personally it satisfies me and my family. One, public funds (my taxes) aren't being used for something that we, and many people, don't believe in. However, it doesnt outlaw abortions and still allows women the freedom to choose whether or not to kill their fetuses. Everyone wins...compromise at it's finest.

Notfor is absolutely correct in this compromise. You are obviously not for choice but willing to allow others to make their own choices whether or not you agree. After reading so much hatred in these posts, you are a breath of fresh air-give or take a word or two that leaves no doubt how you feel:)

As for using taxes it has always been law that tax dollars were not to be used for abortion except in extreme cases. (I know I KNOW - there are some of you who think that clinics will cheat - that's not the issue here.) Anyway we appear to keep REITERATING THE SAME OLD LAW. Why do they continually beat this dead horse? What is to be gained? Does anyone have the answer?

It is my understanding that the point of this amendment was to deny all state workers insurance coverage for abortion services. So a school teacher, a Florida Highway Patrol officer, a park ranger, an agency worker, who has health insurance through their employer, would not be able to have any insurance coverage for abortion services because some portion of the health insurance premium is being paid by tax money. Even though that worker pays a portion of the premium, their benefit would be limited by this Amendment.

Personnally I oppose this. I think the government should stay out of a person's familly planning decisions, even if they are state employees.

Laura, that rumor, if true, is a bit excessive and in the weeds on with the "public funding" perspective. If it were the case, then many state and federal employees shouldn't be insured period because they smoke. Not saying your comment is false, but i would very much like to see where, if it exists, it is defined within the legislation.

SECTION 28. Prohibition on public funding of abortions; construction of abortion rights.—
(a) Public funds may not be expended for any abortion or for health-benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. This subsection does not apply to:
(1) An expenditure required by federal law;
(2) A case in which a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering, physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, which would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed; or
(3) A pregnancy that results from rape or incest.
(b) This constitution may not be interpreted to create broader rights to an abortion than those contained in the United States Constitution.

The language that says no public funds can be spent "for health-benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion" means that no public employee health insurance plan can include abortion services.

In my opinion this is not right. If a person working for Publix has Blue Cross insurance and it would cover abortion services, why should a person working for the County with Blue Cross insurance have more limited coverage.